July 3-5, 2008
Jul 03 06:36 Why Jews Are Wary of Obama Jul 03 08:35 What Blithering Idiots Look (And Sound) Like Jul 03 12:28 There's Nothing Sweet About It Jul 03 21:02 Defeatism As Opinion Jul 05 01:16 Tinklenberg Campaign Whining Again Jul 05 10:15 David Schultz: Franken, Coleman Just Posturing Jul 05 11:56 Obama's Kumbaya Moment Slipping Away?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Why Jews Are Wary of Obama
This Jennifer Rubin article in the J-Post explains why Jewish Americans still don't trust Sen. Obama. The great thing about this article is that it provides a historical perspective on American presidents; devotion to Israel, then uses that historical perspective to explain why Jewish voters will be hesitant to vote for Sen. Obama:
Prime minister Golda Meir had miscalculated Anwar Sadat's willingness to go to war and decided against a first strike against Egypt. The Arab nations attacked in October 1973, and within days Israel was facing defeat.Nixon left no doubt about whether he'd stand with Israel when things were at their most dangerous point. "Tell them to send everything that can fly" is a great way to let the bureaucrats know who set American foreign policy. It was something that Meir appreciated greatly.
The Israelis went to president Richard Nixon with a request for a massive infusion of arms. The Defense and State Departments squabbled. Our European allies, who feared an oil embargo (and would refuse us bases to refuel our planes), inveighed against it, and the Soviets blustered. Many on Nixon's staff wanted to deny the request, or offer only token assistance. Don't antagonize the Arab states, they counseled.
Nixon persisted and, according to some accounts, doubled the amount of aid Israel had requested. Riding herd on the bureaucrats, Nixon repeatedly intervened to push the transports along. Informed about a dispute regarding the type of air transportation, Nixon at one point exclaimed in frustration: "Tell them to send everything that can fly." Over the course of a month US airplanes conducted 815 sorties with over 27,900 tons of materiel.
There's something else that needs to be factored into this, namely, the gas crisis that was right around the corner. Richard Nixon knew this wouldn't be popular with the Arab nations. Nixon could've done a 'on the one hand...on the other hand' thing. He could've delayed his decision. He didn't. He knew what the right thing to do was and he did what was right without delay or hesitation.
Here's what the Obamessiah said at the AIPAC conference :
There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections. But this administration pressed ahead, and the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel.Sen. Obama's speech was on June 5, 2008. Here's Reuters' article from later that week :
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama amended his support for Israel's stance on Jerusalem on Thursday, saying Palestinians and Israelis had to negotiate the future of the holy city. Palestinian leaders reacted with anger and dismay on Wednesday to Obama saying Jerusalem should be Israel's undivided capital.What's needed is a 'one-armed' foreign policy towards Israel. Sen. Obama tends too often to dither with 'on one hand, on the other hand' things. He isn't decisive. That's why Jewish voters won't trust him.
"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama told CNN when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city...In Washington on Wednesday, Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group, that if elected president in November, he would work for peace with a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," he told the lobby group.
There are lots of Jewish voters who won't vote Republican if their life depended on it. That group will simply stay home. Either that or they'll vote for all the Democratic candidates except Sen. Obama. Other Jewish voters aren't that stubborn. Many in that category will vote for John McCain.
The electoral implications are simple: If Sen. Obama doesn't win these voters over, Sen. Obama can kiss Florida goodbye.
Posted Thursday, July 3, 2008 6:37 AM
No comments.
What Blithering Idiots Look (And Sound) Like
Yesterday, Rush confirmed that Clear Channel had signed him through 2016. Now Vanity Fair contributing editor Michael Wolff says that it was a bad decision by Clear Channel. Here's one of his quotes:
"I think it's a monster error," Wolff said. "I know, I'm sitting here saying, 'What are these people smoking?' You know, the truth is that Rush Limbaugh has been, he's ridden the rise of conservatism for 25 years and I don't, maybe nobody quite, quite has been following the news, but that's coming to an end."First off, Rush hasn't "ridden the rise of conservatism." Instead, it's accurate to say that he's been the rise of conservatism. Here's another Wolff quote worth ridiculing:
"It's going to be over and Rush Limbaugh in a relatively short period of time is going to look like a really kind of out-of-it kind of oddity," Wolff said. "And I can not for the life of me imagine how someone could have made this deal."Men of Rush Limbaugh's talent and intelligence don't become oddities, whether it's in a "short period of time" or otherwise. Rush Limbaugh will leave on his terms at the time of his choosing.
Brian Stetler, a media reporter for The New York Times, disagrees with Wolff but throws in an interesting caveat:
Brian Stetler, a media report [sic] for The New York Times, appeared with Wolff and maintained Limbaugh was worth the deal. However, he suggested Limbaugh may have to "be a little less conservative. "[I] don't think it's a good sign though for the ad market," Stelter said. "I talked to Clear Channel and Premiere Radio today and they said it's pretty much a flat-to-declining market. That said though, Rush is looking at the long-term and if he has to reinvent himself, if he has to be a little less conservative, I think he will, as long as he can retain that audience."Mr. Stetler is clueless. Rush won't stop being a conservative. That's who he is. It's time that people realize that Rush doesn't play a conservative on radio. It's time that liberal critics of his show realized that Rush is a conservative on and off the airwaves. It's just that simple.
This reminds me of what people said about Rush in 1992. The critics said that Rush needed Bush 41 to win. If Clinton won, that'd be the end of Rush. Then when Rush thrived beating up the Clintons, people suggested that Rush needed a Democrat in the White House because it gave him so much material. Rush proved his critics wrong by flourishing during Bush 43's administration.
In fact, when Rush first took the national stage, people said that talk radio was just a fad that wouldn't last more than a couple years. Rush's critics missed the mark by only 20 years...and counting.
Twenty years later, Rush is still laughing at his critics. That's because they don't realize that he connects with people, that he inspires people to be the best that they can be. That's the part of the equation that liberals like Michael Wolff and Brian Stetler haven't figured out.
That's because they don't pay attention to inspiration and connection. They just get ideology and gamesmanship. That's why they'll remain clueless about conservatism.
Posted Thursday, July 3, 2008 8:36 AM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 03-Jul-08 09:13 AM
But Gary - you don't understand....that is how THEY are. If they (and their ideas) are not "popular" then they change to be what is popular......
LL
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 03-Jul-08 02:07 PM
Gary:
You left out in 1988 after the election was over there will be nothing to talk about and in 2006 it was dead because Republicans lost Congress.
Maybe they're upset because they're afraid Rush will do to Obama what he did to Clinton. Expose him to death and limit the damage.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by TwoPuttTommy at 04-Jul-08 11:23 AM
***That's why they'll remain clueless about conservatism.***
ROFLMAO!!!
Who cares if the majority doesn't understand you?
What's important, is that conservatism is the minority!
And that's exactly what you losers are: the minority, and come November 2008, Permanent Minority Status comes with it.
Comment 4 by Walter hanson at 04-Jul-08 06:41 PM
Hey somebody had better tell Tommy Johnson that somebody is pretending to be two putt tommy or is it only on MDE will he go by Tommy Johnson.
The fact that he doesn't know his own name shows how worthless post number three is.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
There's Nothing Sweet About It
The LA Times has posted an article titled "A Short But Sweet Gathering", referring to the Democrats' National Convention. Here's what Doyle McManus writes:
Barack Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee are toying with a convention scheduling change that has been broached before in theory but never seriously considered: cutting the party's conclave in Denver short by one day to give Obama an extra day of post-nomination bounce in the crowded August calendar.The reason isn't the calendar. The Democrats haven't come close to raising enough money to pay for their convention. Barring something amazing happening, Democrats won't pay for the convention on time. I don't doubt that they'll pay it. It's just that I think they'll pay for it late.
For the last several decades, when conventions became forums that merely rubber-stamp a presumptive nominee, they have traditionally run from Monday through Thursday. Increasingly, both parties have struggled to offer something of interest during the first couple of convention nights, and the television networks have responded by dramatically reducing live coverage. The only truly significant event has been the nominee's acceptance speech, delivered during prime time on Thursday evening.
But Obama aides have floated the idea of ending the Denver convention on Wednesday, Aug. 27, instead of Thursday, Aug. 28.
The reason is the calendar. This year, unlike in the past, when there was some separation between the two gatherings, the Republican convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul is scheduled to begin four days later, on Monday, Sept. 1. The result, many Democrats believe, could be that Obama would not get the poll number bounce that nominees usually get immediately after being officially anointed.
I can't believe that the Democrats will be that stupid but they've proved me wrong about that before. If they pull a stunt like that, they can write Colorado off. People won't be in a forgiving mood. Denver will get shorted money that they've budgeted.
When I say that Democrats can write Colorado off, I don't just mean on the presidential level. Shorting Colorado like that has the potential of giving all Democrats running for election difficulties.
This isn't shaping up to be a great end of summer for the Democrats. in fact, it could turn into disaster for them, especially if the dedicated Nutroots portion of their party is upset with Sen. Obama on FISA reform. If that happens, the Democratic Party won't be one big happy family.
Posted Thursday, July 3, 2008 12:29 PM
No comments.
Defeatism As Opinion
This morning, The Times Editorial Board wrote a defeatist, all is lost editorial about the days of cheap gas being gone. In reading it, I felt the spirit of Jimmy Carter working its way through the editorial. Here's a portion of the editorial:
Seriously, since those predictions oil prices have consistently set record highs, thanks to (fill in the blank), spurring several reactions from Central Minnesotans.Imagine that. People are reluctant in believing that the days of cheap gas is over. This editorial is just a rewording of Jimmy Carter's "Malaise Speech ." Remember this paragraph from the speech?
Among the most encouraging are anecdotes about people changing their gas-based behaviors and especially travel patterns. Indeed, four of five members of this very board fall into that category, with the fifth noting that they didn't drive much anyway, so yet another price hike/spike induced no big worries.
Similarly, reports nationwide show everything from less travel being planned for this holiday weekend to Americans buying almost 3 percent less gas last week than they did at the same time a year ago. But there also is a different reaction, one which while understandable, seems to signal a reluctance to acknowledge the long-term realities about oil and gas amid supply and demand.
The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our Nation.To my way of thinking, the Times Editorial Board editorial board is the embodiment of Carter's speech. It's like they're saying "Market forces won't work. Supply and demand are outdated concepts. Besides, we can't really increase oil supply." Instead of listening to such defeatism, I put together a Write Now editorial with a bit more optimism. Here's a portion of my editorial:
This is a crisis of choice. We have the ability to drill our way out of it. But it means making a choice that we'll start drilling off shore, in ANWR and in the Mountain West.Actually, Rep. John Peterson said that "we could increase oil production off California's coast within months", not within a month. Nonetheless, it's important to know that drilling could start making an impact within months. Rep. Peterson is the expert on this issue in the US House of Representatives.
Did you know that Rep. John Peterson of Pennsylvania is on the record as saying we could increase oil production off California's coast within a month with some new technology on existing rigs?
Here's something else I put into my editorial:
Had the Founding Fathers had that type of defeatist attitude, the United States would never have existed. The Editorial Board should be ashamed for writing such a defeatist rant just before Independence Day.People settling for mediocre isn't what made the United States great. Perseverance, vision and an indomitable spirit made the United States great. Defeatism isn't part of our national DNA. If I have anything to say about it, it never will.
What's important at this point in time is to rekindle the American attitude that we're able to overcome all obstacles, no matter how daunting they appear. This crisis of choice is no different. We know the way forward. What we need is the steely resolve that the Founding Fathers had and the technology that Ford and Edison had.
Now let's get to work and let's make it work.
Posted Thursday, July 3, 2008 9:09 PM
Comment 1 by TwoPuttTommy at 04-Jul-08 10:34 AM
Jimmy Carter recognized the danger of reliance on imported oil; he set an agressive agenda for alternative enegy. He installed a solar panel on the roof, turned down the thermostat, and put on a cardigan.
Reagan got elected, and said "(cheney) THAT." Reagan took off the sweater, turned up the thermostat, and ripped the solar panel off the roof. And now we're more dependent on imported oil than ever; now instead of being the leader of alternative energy, foreign companies and technologies dominate in the American Market.
Meanwhile, bootlickers want more offshore leases let, when leases already let aren't being drilled.
Fortunately, the electorate has awakened to The Great Lie republiCons tell about damned near everything; be it Carter's Legacy to the soon-to-be President Obama's heritage and education.
The simple fact of the matter - any matter; every matter - is republiCons simply cannot tell the truth; the simple matter is that GOP now stands for GreedOverPrinciples.
And thank God that January 20th, 2009 will be The End Of An Error.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 04-Jul-08 11:36 AM
Two Putt Tommy, That's the last diatribe you get on LFR unless you provide proof of your allegations. Allegations aren't proof.
For instance, when you say that "The simple fact of the matter, any matter; every matter, is republiCons simply cannot tell the truth", you provide nothing but vitriol. No proof. No statements followed by verifiable proof to substantiate the allegations.
If you want to disagree with statements that I make, bring it on. Once you jump to foll-fledged unsubstantiated vitriol without proof, that crosses the line. That won't be tolerated.
Got it?
Comment 3 by TwoPuttTommy at 04-Jul-08 04:37 PM
So, you're the only one allowed "foll-fledged unsubstantiated vitriol" here?
Check. Got it.
But, if you want to watch a republiCon lie through his teeth, link here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmrjyTnXbJw
I was there.
Comment 4 by eric zaetsch at 05-Jul-08 08:58 AM
I think there is some truth to the general populace feeling its been hammered on for decades, what you call defeatism. The low Bush and congressional approval ratings are not partisan - it is a general dissatisfaction.
It is as if there is a disconnect between what Joe Public expects and what the two party system - balancing its interests and having to fund television advertising, offers.
The Saudis even before the second Iraq war was started have been offering to build more US refinery capacity, but neither party has been receptive to that.
Now Newt's posturing.
Newt's a bit disingenuous, not talking refinery control concentration, etc. If it had been at $40 per barrel an economic prospect to expand refineries, doesn't your trust in marke forces suggest to you it would have happened. It the fault trusting market forces or something else?
At $140 a barrel, and with proportional markup at the pump, not just pass through, there, in a free unconcentrated market, many players with no single player having size and power to influence the supply demand balance, the free market paradigm says the new capacity will come. But time - the old story, nine women cannot have a baby in one month - time is a factor. Newt ignores that.
What if there was extensive capital investment in the US, then output decisions in the mid-east were to flood the market? That is a factor, so are the US industry heads "defeatist" that way?
It is not the simple question politicians on either side would have people believing. Were it a simple problem it would be an already solved problem.
I suggest it is two-party stagnation that is the basis of any defeatism and pessimism the general public feels. If you have a solution to two party stagnation, bless you, let's hear it.
Comment 5 by eric zaetsch at 05-Jul-08 09:10 AM
Gary, I read the oped you linked to. I would not call is simplistic, as much as I would call it myopic. I understand the limitations of oped length constraints, but on the blog, sometime, what about the refinery capacity bottleneck? Do you have an answer to that one, especially a quick fix answer?
Do you think the Koch family, as staunchly GOP as they are, would embrace the idea of a competitive refinery in the Twin Cities? Do you deny such things are a factor?
Is there a viable GOP answer to the Koch family liking refinery capacity in the state just as it is? They are not putting more of their capital into more local capacity, and they must have reasons for that. Market driven reasons.
They are marking their product up proportionally to the wellhead increases, and their other costs of production for refined product are not rising proportionally. Some might view that as exploitative of a wellhead situation being over-publicized.
Comment 6 by Walter Hanson at 05-Jul-08 12:49 PM
wow don't people like Tommy and Eric get it.
To expand on your version of your reply Gary if George Washington in December of 1776 said I don't have a shot of winning I won't even bother to cross the river and attack those Hessians we won't have a country today.
We have to be postive and belief we can adapt. The problem is that people like Tommy and Eric want us to pay through the nose for gasoline because they think it's destroying the environment.
They don't care if work on nontransit routes or work odd hours.
They don't care that you can't take several bags of groceries on the bus.
They don't remember that the windfall profits tax hurt oil production in America and raised price.
They don't care and they don't remember the failed solution of Jimmy Carter. The fact that Tommy thinks Carter was brilliant shows just how dumb that Tommy is.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Tinklenberg Campaign Whining Again
The Tinklenberg campaign is trying to paint Rep. Michele Bachmann as a tool of evil 'Big Oil' interests as an attempt to portray her as out of touch with mainstreet Minnesotans. The bad news for the Tinklenberg campaign is that most Minnesotans want increased oil production. Here's their latest anti-Bachmann screed:
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Congressman and Chair of the National Republican Campaign Committee, announced Monday that he will be in Minnesota this week to fundraise with his fellow Big Oil beneficiary, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.This is irrefutable proof...of nothing. What's funny is that the Tinklenberg campaign highlights an Oklahoma politician who supports Big Oil. In Oklahoma, D's and R's alike accept contributions from 'Big Oil'. Of course, Tinklenberg won't criticize the Democrats who accept contributions from 'Big Oil'. They're offlimits to his criticisms because Mr. Tinklenberg believes in a double standard.
Cole, whose voting record on energy policy is in sync with Bachmann's, has taken over $50,000 in contributions from oil and gas companies in the current campaign cycle. Bachmann has taken in more than $40,000 in contributions from gas and oil companies since 2005.
While it's true that this will help Mr. Tinklenberg rally environmentalists, I wouldn't bet that his criticizing oil production will play well with farmers who see their fuel costs rising dramatically. It won't play well with housewives who see groceries going up in price as a result of higher shipping costs. It won't play well with OTR truckers who've had to park their rigs because they've lost money delivering their goods to market.
Anna Richey, campaign manager for El Tinklenberg, said, "It is disappointing, but hardly surprising, that Rep. Bachmann is bringing in her friends from Big Oil to help raise money for her campaign. I doubt she will ever vote in a way that jeopardizes her support from the oil and gas industries , since it obviously brings such substantial returns."This is the Tinklenberg campaing whining. It's proof that good policy makes for good politics, which translates into fat campaign contributions. That's something that must be upsetting to the Tinklenberg campaign. they're whining because they haven't been raking the cash in. He might start getting more robust contributions after his environmentalist kick but he' dug himself a pretty deep fundraising hole which will be difficult to climb out of.
The Tinklenberg campaign's attacks on Tom Cole shows that they know they've got to go negative on Michele to have any chance of winning. What's puzzling to me is that voters don't care about Tom Cole. They'll care about who has the best solutions to today's problems. As I've said before, they aren't picky about the details; they just want a viable solution.
Posted Saturday, July 5, 2008 1:20 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 05-Jul-08 08:18 AM
The only thing wrong with "Big Oil" is that it isn't big enough! The trial lawyers, on the other hand...
Comment 2 by eric zaetsch at 05-Jul-08 08:20 AM
I have done what I could to pin down whether the Immelman primary challenge to Bachmann is astroturf from out of the Tinklenberg camp.
I could not find that. Someone at the Dump Bachmann blog, in comments noted he had donated to the Wetterling campaign. He indicates his interest in and abilities to help in missing person cases is how he met and grew to respect Wetterling.
Yet he seems to be a secular, moderate but real GOP candidate.
He's done military work, psych profiling, so it looks as if having a primary may give Bachmann the opportunity to define her differences, the GOP candidate she is and her stances, vs. Immelman.
As one not in the GOP but upset with the Tinklenberg v. Bachmann choice, I would hope some GOP people would look at Immelman.
He appears a viable choice - a reason to not have to vote for one of the other two, and someone with a chance of keeping that seat for the GOP. It might be a better chance for you guys to hold on than sticking with Bachmann. She does have many problems, most of them self generated. Many chickens looking to come home to roost, and losing that seat is a distinct possibility.
You can lose it to a sensible GOP candidate, you can lose it to Tinklenberg - but, good luck if the favorite route is sticking with who you have there now. Michele Bachmann is not a winner.
Comment 3 by eric zaetsch at 05-Jul-08 08:29 AM
One other thing. The place in the States where they have oil, the Bakken, that is being exploited right now - so the premise of the Gingrich drill now, drill here, it's false - there is the drilling, but not the Pay Less.
With that the case, who's pricing the oil? Who is pricing the refinery product from the Koch site?
Not the Dems. You should research why with the Bakken being exploited at present - all the oil interests care to drill, pump, and market from there, why there is not more oil from the US on the market. If there is an economic answer you have it might be worth a post. The best info I have seen is that the oil is slow to extract, but that would suggest more wells extracting it would pump more oil, as a first level premise.
Any info about why the Bakken is not being used to produce more, now? If they did pump a lot more is the refinery capacity in place for utilizing that?
Comment 4 by Aslan at 05-Jul-08 09:46 AM
It's fine to drill, but the oil companies should drill on the billions of acres of land they already hold leases for.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 05-Jul-08 10:26 AM
It's fine to drill, but the oil companies should drill on the billions of acres of land they already hold leases for.
Many of those leases don't have oil underneath them or have been determined to not have enough to warrant production. Drilling there would only drive up production costs, which would then drive up the cost of a gallon of gasoline.
Tell me how that's a solution.
Comment 6 by Walter Hanson at 05-Jul-08 12:41 PM
Eric:
Michelle Bachman is a great conservative Republican!! We need more Michaelle Bachman's. This person you're promoting must be a liberal democrat or a rhino. The true Republicans love Bachman!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 7 by Walter hanson at 05-Jul-08 05:15 PM
Eric:
Silly question. If Alaska thinks they have lots of oil why aren't we drilling there?
If we have oil off California and Florida why aren't we drilling there?
Gringich drill now is to open up those places to increase production to lower the price. As long as people don't think new supplies are coming online prices will stay high especially if world demand keeps going up!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
David Schultz: Franken, Coleman Just Posturing
According to this article on WCCO's website, Hamline professor David Schultz thinks that Sen. Coleman and Al Franken are posturing for the voters on the issue of high gas prices. Here's what Schultz said:
Professor David Schulz of Hamline University said both candidates are posturing.I respectfully disagree with Schultz's characterization. The difference between Franken and Coleman is that Franken is pushing a tax increase while Sen. Coleman has proposed a solution. That isn't posturing. Let's examine Franken's solution first.
"Can either of these candidates do anything in the next few weeks? No, absolutely nothing. They're not going to have any impact on gas prices. A lot of this is about symbolic politics. What would I do if I were king, or something like that," he said.
However, Schulz said both the candidates do clearly have different views on this issue.
And while much of the campaign so far has focused on matters, like Franken's past writings, tax problems and just this week Coleman's living arrangements in Washington D.C., Schulz said this debate on energy policy could mark the start of the real campaign, one where issues and substance make up the headlines.
Franken said that he supports a windfall profits tax, with the money being "invested in renewable energy sources." The economy is fragile as it is but Franken is proposing a tax increase on the oil companies. This raises their production costs. It also passes that production cost onto consumers.
This is nothing more than populism dressed up as a solution. It's what I'd call an anti-solution. It doesn't solve anything; it just makes things worse.
Now let's look at Sen. Coleman's proposal. Sen. Coleman introduced a bill that would increase oil production by opening up more leases on the OCS. It also would allow for the building of nuclear power plants.
During the blogger conference call , Rep. John Peterson said that it wouldn't take nearly as long as Democrats are telling people to get production going. He said that there are some rigs off California's coast that were placed offlimits that could be fitted with new technology that could start producing oil "within months." Rep. Peterson also said that exploration that's done near existing oil fields would come online faster because it wouldn't take long to connect with existing infrastructure.
The other great thing about tapping into the OCS is that there's huge amounts of natural gas out there. That's what I'd call a solution. I definitely wouldn't call that posturing.
WCCO does its watchers a disservice by treating an anti-solution with the same merit as a solution. Perhaps that's why the people are voting with their fingers to opt for the New Media's appraisals instead of the analysis of the WCCO's and Stribs.
Rest assured that I will be pointing out the differences between Franken's gimmicks and Sen. Coleman's solutions.
Posted Saturday, July 5, 2008 10:15 AM
No comments.
Obama's Kumbaya Moment Slipping Away?
According to this CNN/Opinion Research poll , many of Hillary's supporters aren't in a forgiving mood. This despite the Hillary-Obama kiss-and-make-up appearance in Unity, NH. Here's one of the poll's most interesting findings:
A growing number of Clinton supporters polled say they may stay home in November instead of casting their ballot for Obama, an indication the party has yet to coalesce around the Illinois senator four weeks after the most prolonged and at times divisive primary race in modern American history came to a close.I wouldn't expect the Clintons to work overtime to correct this problem. They're eyeing a 2012 run against John McCain. The last thing they want is a President Obama. That isn't how they want their legacy to read.
This might be the bigger threat to Sen. Obama:
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Friday, the number of Clinton supporters who plan to defect to Republican Sen. John McCain's camp is down from one month ago, but, in what could be an ominous sign for Obama as he seeks to unify the party, the number of them who say they plan to vote for Obama is also down, and a growing number say they may not vote at all.I never expected all those people who told exit pollsters that they'd vote for McCain to vote for McCain. I figured that alot of the pro-choice crowd to make their way into Obama's camp. I'm equally confident, though, that alot of the blue collar workers that voted for Hillary will vote for Sen. McCain.
The part that's got to have David Axelrod worried is the amount of people who say that they'll stay home. That's where the divisive nature of this presidential campaign is most visible. This pro-Hillary website makes it abundantly clear where they stand:
Party Unity My Ass - PUMAHere's the "action plan" for PUMA:
1.) Dissociate yourself from the party. Tell them you will not be a party to its self destructive behavior.This might explain alot of CNN's polling. It's obvious that a significant minority of Hillary's voters were Hillary-Only voters. These Hillary-Only voters are intensely steadfast in their support of Hillary. A smooth presentation won't win these voters over. In fact, I suspect that alot of them can't be won over.
2.) Reflect on your values. Read the credo at the top of this site and create at better one. Keep the language general and inclusive. Concentrate on universal truths and beliefs. Avoid wordsmithing.
3.) Stick together. We are powerful as a unit if we do not fall victim to the psychological warfare that is about to be directed at us. Turn off the media. Avoid conversations with trolls. Stand firm and do not yield.
4.) Remember that there is a better alternative. Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate for the party and the nation. She has a lot of support out there. The nation will rally around her if we let them know we are not giving in. We must not let her concede one inch. Stand firm. Send her your good thoughts. Send her money. Do not give up.
5.) Spread the word.
Many a pundit says that states like Georgia, North and South Carolina and Arkansas are possible Obama pickups. Had there not been such a divisive primary, that still would've been an uphill fight because the Hillary-Only voters would still be a factor.
But the question remains whether Obama can win enough Democrats without Clinton as his No. 2. "If he doesn't pick her, a later stage of grief is depression and then acceptance," Schneider said. "In the end I expect Clinton supporters will accept Obama, because they will listen to Sen. Clinton, who has said the stakes are too high for Democrats to sulk."The reality is that Sen. Obama doens't connect with blue collar workers. The RNC won't let voters forget Sen. Obama's SF fundraising comments. They'll remind voters that Sen. Obama doesn't think highly of their values.
As I pointed out here , Obama suffers from being perceived as a foreign policy lightweight. That's verified by all the major polling, too.
There will be some coalescing around Obama's candidacy. The question that's still lingering is how much coalescing will happen.
Posted Saturday, July 5, 2008 11:57 AM
No comments.
